SURJIT SINGH ARORA Vs. HARBANS SING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant has come up in revision petition against the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, refusing him permission to contest the application filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 as extended by the Government of India vide Notification dated 15.12.1986 to the Union Territory, Chandigarh, (for short the Act).

(2.) THE respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 13-A of the Act against the petitioner. Pursuant thereto the Rent Controller issued summons for service on the petitioner-tenant in the form specified in Schedule II as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 18-A of the Act. The tenant on receipt of the summons filed an application supported by an affidavit seeking permission to contest the application for eviction. The tenant sought permission to contest the application on twin grounds, namely, (i) the demised premises is a commercial premises and eviction under Section 13-A of the Act cannot be sought; (ii) the accommodation in possession of the landlord is adequate for his use and occupation.

(3.) IN Kamala Arora v. Amar Singh reported as, 1980(1) RCR 530, this Court held that a residential building let out for non-residential purpose by the landlord without obtaining the written permission of the Rent Controller in terms of Section 11 of the Act would continue to be a residential building and the landlord would be entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant on the ground of his bonafide requirement.